Of course. But value to whom? How much value? These are important questions which need rather good answers despite the faultiness of the instruments for measuring them. What do those two words even mean? Culture to one person can be nihilistic and a sign of decay to the other. Preservation of culture is often just an advertising slogan for iron clad enforcement of that status quo.

So what does a nation stand for anyway, why should soldiers be expected to lay down their lives to protect the nation?

Nothing / I would hope they wouldn't be stupid enough to ever do that.

You cannot buy that with money though you may well believe a soldier is only doing his job with stolen taxpayer money. You cannot buy anything you like with money. The environment that encourages achievement of a more intangible and unquantifiable nature must exist, otherwise nobody will go out of the way to do anything. The idea of public funding for the arts may well sound incredulous to you but it already exists in Europe and is just a substitute for royal patronage. I will address why this is required in the next comment.

Yeah trust me people will go out of the way to do things without some meager arts appropriations which will be handed out in a completely arbitrary fashion. I'm aware that it exists. It exists in the US too. It's a fine substitute for royal patronage which was a much more disgusting and abhorrent system. This does not make it a good one.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

er, how do you even know there is no benefit to be derived by others at all? You only infer this from the absence of a market but that does not take cognisance of how the music industry works in the 21st century. Labels commit money where THEY feel secure of returns but an artist without label support would lose the battle in the promotional stage itself. I cannot comment on the state of things in America but in India it is very difficult for an artist to promote his work without advertisements in top newspapers and that costs a lot of money. In such a situation the artist keeps his unit lean so no scope for hard to get indian instruments. All I advocate is for the govt to support a fixed no of performances of classical music each year. It would give more benefit than the upkeep of the palatial residences of governers, the most ceremonial and redundant of British Raj relics still maintained in the nation. No, sorry, I don't see the harm of public funding in a country where we fund the pomp and power lust of the thugs we call politicians. I am not looking at it from a narrow libertarian view because India is nor libertarian anyway.

I don't need to know this. You do. And you don't. So before you forcibly collect funds, you should have a pretty good idea of who your expenditures will benefit and by how much. I have no idea what the tax structure is like in India, but I think it would be unfathomably immoral to take a penny of money from the poor in that country and push it into art funding where famine and malnutrition is commonplace.

Edited by Equality 7-2521 - December 11 2013 at 22:33

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Of course. But value to whom? How much value? These are important questions which need rather good answers despite the faultiness of the instruments for measuring them. What do those two words even mean? Culture to one person can be nihilistic and a sign of decay to the other. Preservation of culture is often just an advertising slogan for iron clad enforcement of that status quo.

How much value? How about, priceless? People sacrificed comfortable positions and risked or laid down their lives to get back the identity of this country from...er, colonial masters from a market based economy. Identity and culture of a nation is defined at a larger, macro level anyway. There is no such thing as an individual culture; it is mass produced and mass distributed via, well, the mass media. It is just done very subtly to leave the individuals under the illusion that they have made their own choices. Sure, but only out of the choices the mass media offer them anyway.

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Nothing / I would hope they wouldn't be stupid enough to ever do that.

It's all very well for you to complacently say that but the fact is that unfortunately not everyone in the world is a libertarian which means that there are terrorists or war enemies to deal with. Without those soldiers, leading a normal life may be inconceivable for you and me. Whether or not war itself is necessary is a different question but the soldier makes the ultimate sacrifice not because he is paid to but out of honour and national pride.

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Yeah trust me people will go out of the way to do things without some meager arts appropriations which will be handed out in a completely arbitrary fashion.

I never said that ALONE would lead to it. I said the climate has to exist where the acceptance of value for something intangible in itself is not looked down upon as a stupid choice, which is more or less the conclusion your line of reasoning would lead to. (see above your comment on a soldier's sacrifice) Every action cannot be based on monetary consideration alone. That will only lead to even greater levels of distrust and deceit.

I don't need to know this. You do. And you don't. So before you forcibly collect funds, you should have a pretty good idea of who your expenditures will benefit and by how much. I have no idea what the tax structure is like in India, but I think it would be unfathomably immoral to take a penny of money from the poor in that country and push it into art funding where famine and malnutrition is commonplace.

Yes, evidently you do not know anything about the tax structure of India as the conclusion you jumped to reveals full well. Entire income, without limit, from agricultural produce is not taxed and only income above a minimum slab of Rs 2 lakh is subject to any tax at all, starting at 10%. The maximum rate of 30% is applied only on income exceeding Re 10 lakh, i.e middle class and above. So no penny is in any event taken from the poor towards taxes. Further, I have only advocated diverting whatever revenue the govt already earns towards arts instead of the lavish indulgences bestowed on ceremonial govt posts like Governor. There is no need to impose any additional tax for this purpose towards art since govt wastes a lot of our money on such redundant displays of power and opulence. And on the other hand, it will open up avenues of employment for the rural poor who have skills in these activities but are rendered unemployable in a market that only rewards computer savvy. Kindly do your research before jumping to conclusions about what I have advocated.

Culture is a defining part of nation, one of the links bonding a nation (not in its geo-political meaning but nation as a socio-cultural construct) together. The commonalities between people depend on its traditions and its common goals/needs. I understand why focusing on the individual puts little value on this, and the US is a country made of multiple nationalities therefore the sense of nation and common culture is quite less strong here than in other places, but that still makes it rather dangerous to leave all the future of the traditions and culture of a nation in the hands of the market, which is not free but owned by a few very powerful conglomerations whose only purpose is to drive their own interests. Left to the market's devices, culture would fare really bad, probably disappearing in favor of (to speak in musical terms) the latest Justin Bieber or any famous fad.

On the other hand, the preservation of old cultural values and traditions probably helps somewhat to preserve nefarious things in India like the caste system which is quite socially unfair. What is your opinion Rogerthat?

On the other hand, the preservation of old cultural values and traditions probably helps somewhat to preserve nefarious things in India like the caste system which is quite socially unfair. What is your opinion Rogerthat?

For that, we have the Constitution. Now, if only we had judges instead of idiots to interpret it. In case you have been following the news, you'd have learnt that our wonderful apex court actually upheld that Victorian relic called Sec 377, pronouncing same sex unions a crime!! It so blatantly violates the intention of the Constitution to give equal rights to all irrespective of religion, caste, sex etc that the judgment defies logic. On caste, things are pretty nuanced and complex in India and not always what they seem to be on the surface. In some parts of India, the erstwhile backward castes have almost overthrown the forwards, making it difficult for the latter to land seats for engineering courses and forcing them to leave their home state. In others, the bad old zamindari system is more or less intact. Politicians play off votebanks against each other. It's divide and rule, except it's not by the British anymore. It's difficult to understand at any given point whether India is moving forwards or backwards.

Culture is a defining part of nation, one of the links bonding a nation (not in its geo-political meaning but nation as a socio-cultural construct) together. The commonalities between people depend on its traditions and its common goals/needs. I understand why focusing on the individual puts little value on this, and the US is a country made of multiple nationalities therefore the sense of nation and common culture is quite less strong here than in other places, but that still makes it rather dangerous to leave all the future of the traditions and culture of a nation in the hands of the market, which is not free but owned by a few very powerful conglomerations whose only purpose is to drive their own interests. Left to the market's devices, culture would fare really bad, probably disappearing in favor of (to speak in musical terms) the latest Justin Bieber or any famous fad.

Exactly. And thank you for saying what I didn't want to jump to looking from the outside but had suspected. I can understand the notion of a more individualistic and fluid culture in a country like USA. In other countries, identity is an anchor and is much more difficult to let go of.

Of course. But value to whom? How much value? These are important questions which need rather good answers despite the faultiness of the instruments for measuring them. What do those two words even mean? Culture to one person can be nihilistic and a sign of decay to the other. Preservation of culture is often just an advertising slogan for iron clad enforcement of that status quo.

How much value? How about, priceless? People sacrificed comfortable positions and risked or laid down their lives to get back the identity of this country from...er, colonial masters from a market based economy. Identity and culture of a nation is defined at a larger, macro level anyway. There is no such thing as an individual culture; it is mass produced and mass distributed via, well, the mass media. It is just done very subtly to leave the individuals under the illusion that they have made their own choices. Sure, but only out of the choices the mass media offer them anyway.

I'm not even sure exactly what you're trying to say. But I know that you're not saying anything to answer my question. You're avoiding it. Priceless is a word we use because we think that translating something into a denomination of money cheapens it in a way. This doesn't escape the fact that everything has a price. Priceless things are wagered every day. Life is priceless, the environment is priceless, spending time with your family is priceless but everyday everyday every person bargains with this priceless things. A guy works on a Saturday morning instead of taking his daughter to the zoo. You sleep an extra hour instead of watching the sunrise. This is the reality. Everything has a price. You can refuse to put a number to it, but the price is still there.

It's all very well for you to complacently say that but the fact is that unfortunately not everyone in the world is a libertarian which means that there are terrorists or war enemies to deal with. Without those soldiers, leading a normal life may be inconceivable for you and me. Whether or not war itself is necessary is a different question but the soldier makes the ultimate sacrifice not because he is paid to but out of honour and national pride.

It's nothing to do with me being a fat and content American pontificating from his ivory tower. People should die for themselves and their families if necessary. Not for an abstract entity or as a pawn in some political chess match. There's nothing libertarian about that.

I never said that ALONE would lead to it. I said the climate has to exist where the acceptance of value for something intangible in itself is not looked down upon as a stupid choice, which is more or less the conclusion your line of reasoning would lead to. (see above your comment on a soldier's sacrifice) Every action cannot be based on monetary consideration alone. That will only lead to even greater levels of distrust and deceit.

My point was that individuals will still chase artistic pursuits cultural and environmental conditions be damned. It's part of what makes the arts so lovely. That's all I was saying there.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Culture is a defining part of nation, one of the links bonding a nation (not in its geo-political meaning but nation as a socio-cultural construct) together. The commonalities between people depend on its traditions and its common goals/needs. I understand why focusing on the individual puts little value on this, and the US is a country made of multiple nationalities therefore the sense of nation and common culture is quite less strong here than in other places, but that still makes it rather dangerous to leave all the future of the traditions and culture of a nation in the hands of the market, which is not free but owned by a few very powerful conglomerations whose only purpose is to drive their own interests. Left to the market's devices, culture would fare really bad, probably disappearing in favor of (to speak in musical terms) the latest Justin Bieber or any famous fad.

I find this ridiculous. Musical culture is more robust now than at any point ever. Markets can't control culture. They can hold it back or rush it forward at time. They can package its facsimile as a product and sell it. Despite the media's best hip-hop culture was born and grew. Despite the music industry's bottling of something far different, the culture still exists and plugs on quite nicely.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

I don't need to know this. You do. And you don't. So before you forcibly collect funds, you should have a pretty good idea of who your expenditures will benefit and by how much. I have no idea what the tax structure is like in India, but I think it would be unfathomably immoral to take a penny of money from the poor in that country and push it into art funding where famine and malnutrition is commonplace.

Yes, evidently you do not know anything about the tax structure of India as the conclusion you jumped to reveals full well. Entire income, without limit, from agricultural produce is not taxed and only income above a minimum slab of Rs 2 lakh is subject to any tax at all, starting at 10%. The maximum rate of 30% is applied only on income exceeding Re 10 lakh, i.e middle class and above. So no penny is in any event taken from the poor towards taxes. Further, I have only advocated diverting whatever revenue the govt already earns towards arts instead of the lavish indulgences bestowed on ceremonial govt posts like Governor. There is no need to impose any additional tax for this purpose towards art since govt wastes a lot of our money on such redundant displays of power and opulence. And on the other hand, it will open up avenues of employment for the rural poor who have skills in these activities but are rendered unemployable in a market that only rewards computer savvy. Kindly do your research before jumping to conclusions about what I have advocated.

Did you read what I wrote or what you wanted me to have written? I didn't jump to conclusions anywhere. Nor did I speculate about India's tax structure anywhere. I admitted ignorance and gave a hypothetical situation in the subjunctive mood.

Regardless, it still seems to me that the country has bigger fish to fry than the possible dying of the classical music industry.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

I'm not even sure exactly what you're trying to say. But I know that you're not saying anything to answer my question. You're avoiding it. Priceless is a word we use because we think that translating something into a denomination of money cheapens it in a way. This doesn't escape the fact that everything has a price. Priceless things are wagered every day. Life is priceless, the environment is priceless, spending time with your family is priceless but everyday everyday every person bargains with this priceless things. A guy works on a Saturday morning instead of taking his daughter to the zoo. You sleep an extra hour instead of watching the sunrise. This is the reality. Everything has a price. You can refuse to put a number to it, but the price is still there.

There's nothing to avoid there. There's no quantifiable value to culture but the same also does not imply that it does not have value per se. You cannot denounce the pursuit of something merely because it is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify its value and that is more or less what you are doing. A person is unlikely to jump to his death just because his boss offers him a million dollars. If he does do so, it would probably be to save his family from debt. Come on, life at least is surely priceless, nobody trades in their own life just for money.

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

People should die for themselves and their families if necessary. Not for an abstract entity or as a pawn in some political chess match. There's nothing libertarian about that.

Even if it is a political chess match, there's the reality of an enemy on attack and it takes a selfless soldier to stop said enemy from taking your or my life. This is a pretty simple point that you should be able to see no matter how much you hate war (and I do too). Do you think that merely by paying money it is possible to buy such a degree of valour? No, intangibles exist and that's the reality no matter how unsatisfactory that is from a quantitative point of view. Deriving the utility of something based on money value works for tangible, non-living stuff, not for intangibles. If this wasn't the case, it wouldn't be said that most people leave a boss and not a job. Equations between people are important, passion is important, courage is, and money cannot buy any of these things.

Did you read what I wrote or what you wanted me to have written? I didn't jump to conclusions anywhere. Nor did I speculate about India's tax structure anywhere. I admitted ignorance and gave a hypothetical situation in the subjunctive mood.

Regardless, it still seems to me that the country has bigger fish to fry than the possible dying of the classical music industry.

Oh yes, you did jump to conclusions. First, that I had advocated an additional tax for it and second, that tax would be imposed on the poor. You did not specify it as a hypothetical situation. If you had meant it as hypothetical, you should have put it thusly, "if a penny of tax is taken from the poor for funding music, it would be immoral". You did not, you said you thought it is immoral to take money from the poor for funding music. So you did assume that the tax would be imposed on the poor without bothering to find out whether that would indeed be the case in the country's tax structure. You make assumptions a lot of times in your arguments and your unwillingness to admit that won't change that fact.

There's nothing to avoid there. There's no quantifiable value to culture but the same also does not imply that it does not have value per se. You cannot denounce the pursuit of something merely because it is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify its value and that is more or less what you are doing. A person is unlikely to jump to his death just because his boss offers him a million dollars. If he does do so, it would probably be to save his family from debt. Come on, life at least is surely priceless, nobody trades in their own life just for money.

As I said, people won't put a dollar value on their family, but they will make countless decisions which take them away from their family at certain points over a life. That's putting a price on family. You're not assigning a dollar value, but it's the same thing. (Price =/= dollar value. Maybe that's a communication chasm)

Nothing's priceless. This is why people commit suicide. And plenty of people commit suicide over money.

Even if it is a political chess match, there's the reality of an enemy on attack and it takes a selfless soldier to stop said enemy from taking your or my life. This is a pretty simple point that you should be able to see no matter how much you hate war (and I do too).

As I said, people should die for themselves, their families, and their values. If they coincide with those of the country, great. If they do not and they still die fighting for their country, then that's idiocy.

Do you think that merely by paying money it is possible to buy such a degree of valour? No, intangibles exist and that's the reality no matter how unsatisfactory that is from a quantitative point of view. Deriving the utility of something based on money value works for tangible, non-living stuff, not for intangibles. If this wasn't the case, it wouldn't be said that most people leave a boss and not a job. Equations between people are important, passion is important, courage is, and money cannot buy any of these things.

What valor?

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Did you read what I wrote or what you wanted me to have written? I didn't jump to conclusions anywhere. Nor did I speculate about India's tax structure anywhere. I admitted ignorance and gave a hypothetical situation in the subjunctive mood.

Regardless, it still seems to me that the country has bigger fish to fry than the possible dying of the classical music industry.

Oh yes, you did jump to conclusions. First, that I had advocated an additional tax for it and second, that tax would be imposed on the poor. You did not specify it as a hypothetical situation. If you had meant it as hypothetical, you should have put it thusly, "if a penny of tax is taken from the poor for funding music, it would be immoral". You did not, you said you thought it is immoral to take money from the poor for funding music. So you did assume that the tax would be imposed on the poor without bothering to find out whether that would indeed be the case in the country's tax structure. You make assumptions a lot of times in your arguments and your unwillingness to admit that won't change that fact.

Every hypothetical need not be an "if, then" statement. I'm not going to argue with you about this. Move on to something real.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Culture is a defining part of nation, one of the links bonding a nation (not in its geo-political meaning but nation as a socio-cultural construct) together. The commonalities between people depend on its traditions and its common goals/needs. I understand why focusing on the individual puts little value on this, and the US is a country made of multiple nationalities therefore the sense of nation and common culture is quite less strong here than in other places, but that still makes it rather dangerous to leave all the future of the traditions and culture of a nation in the hands of the market, which is not free but owned by a few very powerful conglomerations whose only purpose is to drive their own interests. Left to the market's devices, culture would fare really bad, probably disappearing in favor of (to speak in musical terms) the latest Justin Bieber or any famous fad.

I find this ridiculous. Musical culture is more robust now than at any point ever. Markets can't control culture. They can hold it back or rush it forward at time. They can package its facsimile as a product and sell it. Despite the media's best hip-hop culture was born and grew. Despite the music industry's bottling of something far different, the culture still exists and plugs on quite nicely.

I'm not sure you have any evidence as to the robustness of the musical culture, I don't, I just speak from observations. But I think market forces CAN control culture. Let's move to a different area right now to make my example: TV, a great example of mass media. At some moment in time, all TV networks fell into the hands of 3 or 4 conglomerates and suddenly all "Educational" options like The History Channel or TLC turned into extremely useless, devoid of any educational value, options, just because the market found that the best way to make money was to have a specific type of programming. Now even those in the fringes of the market can't find any different options. The market (its owners, 4 or 5 conglomerates) have decided what everybody has to watch (even in cable, don't pretend that is an alternative). You could say that's an elitist inside me talking, you could say "the people have chosen" but I say that's not true, 3 or 4 people have making the choice for everybody else. The same, I fear, can happen with other manifestations of media and culture, including music.

As I said, people won't put a dollar value on their family, but they will make countless decisions which take them away from their family at certain points over a life.

They equally also make plenty of decisions that prioritise family over higher income. This is especially true of married women, who priortise raising their kids over career advancement. Why don't you admit that it is a situation that puts a person in a dilemma and makes him choose between more money and the happiness of the ones he loves? If it was only about the money, there wouldn't even be any dilemma, right? Is it because that would negate your argument that everything has a price?

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Nothing's priceless. This is why people commit suicide. And plenty of people commit suicide over money.

That's a flawed example. They commit suicide because they cannot bear to go through the humiliation of being in prison and their guilt over failing the people who believed in them, especially family, overpowers them. The impulse to commit suicide may be triggered by the lack of money but the reason to commit it derives from ego, self esteem and guilt. That is not at all the same thing that you referred to earlier in saying everything has a price. People do not commit suicide because it will fetch them more money. People commit suicide because the lack of money is about to put them through unbearable humiliation and suffering which they would rather not bear.

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

As I said, people should die for themselves, their families, and their values. If they coincide with those of the country, great. If they do not and they still die fighting for their country, then that's idiocy.

Oh, do carry on then with being obstinate. It is a simple point I am making. I am not interested in whether the decision to give up your life on the battlefield is stupid. I am interested in the pyschological motivation for it, which is clearly not linked to money but other considerations, stupid or otherwise. Is this again a case that admission of this logic would disrupt your grand theory about the all conquering pervasiveness of money?

It needs to be if you want to make yourself clear on the internet. I am not going to let this pass. If you don't want people to say you jumped to a conclusion, the onus lies on you to phrase your arguments thus - don't always look for somebody else to pin the blame on.

]I'm not sure you have any evidence as to the robustness of the musical culture, I don't, I just speak from observations. But I think market forces CAN control culture. Let's move to a different area right now to make my example: TV, a great example of mass media. At some moment in time, all TV networks fell into the hands of 3 or 4 conglomerates and suddenly all "Educational" options like The History Channel or TLC turned into extremely useless, devoid of any educational value, options, just because the market found that the best way to make money was to have a specific type of programming. Now even those in the fringes of the market can't find any different options. The market (its owners, 4 or 5 conglomerates) have decided what everybody has to watch (even in cable, don't pretend that is an alternative). You could say that's an elitist inside me talking, you could say "the people have chosen" but I say that's not true, 3 or 4 people have making the choice for everybody else. The same, I fear, can happen with other manifestations of media and culture, including music.

You're absolutely right. I have no hard evidence. I could be deceiving myself. I think it's hard to argue though that we have access to far more music from more obscure and distant artists than we have had in the past though. That certainly is a component to a robust musical cultural. It seems that the academic music students are writing dissertations on a wider range of music than was common even twenty years ago. And it certainly seems like the cross-pollination and diversity of styles is at an all time high (which ties directly to the first point I would think). It's a premature claim, but I don't think it's a poor one.

Cultural is of course a tricky thing to debate since it lacks a rigid definition. But I would argue two things, that the example you describe is more influenced by cultural than directing it and that you're seeing more of an intra-media shift than a societal change. I don't think just using things that appear on good TV as a proxy for the cultural consumption is accurate. It will just reflect the most profitable situation for cable programers. I think you're seeing a mixture of divergence, absorption and competitive disadvantage. Shifts to programs like finding big foot and the home-improvement DIY formats on TLC are really just riding the still powerful wave of reality television / voyeurism which certainly is a cultural change, but it's one that TV has been responding to rather than pushing.

The general replacement of pseudo-science / crypto-history for the previous facile history of HC isn't representing some cultural shift in interest about the past. It was a tenuous market position to begin with. The print market has the corner dominated for serious consumers of history and a nice niche for casual ones. The fulcrum of their base began to get eroded by a medium that is simply a much better fit in the internet. Media as a whole provides a much better proxy for what you're looking at I believe.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

It needs to be if you want to make yourself clear on the internet. I am not going to let this pass. If you don't want people to say you jumped to a conclusion, the onus lies on you to phrase your arguments thus - don't always look for somebody else to pin the blame on.

Have fun. I am letting it pass.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum